The Experience of Doing Science with an Artistic Spirit: A Hermeneutic Phenomenological Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on the concept of extracognition. It reports a qualitative study that explored the perceived experiences of doing science with an artistic spirit through the voices of living scientists who also engage in the arts. The purpose was to understand how accomplished scientists who engage in the arts make sense out of their experience of doing science. Four highly able scientists with ex-pertise in their field who also self-identified as actively engaged in the fine arts were given voice on their perceived experiences of doing science. Through her-meneutic phenomenological methodology using thematic analysis, four major themes emerged. This paper focuses on one theme, “Feeling Connected to Some-thing More through the Arts.” Three sub-topics are explored in relation to extracognition: (a) intuition, (b) serendipity, and (c) spirituality. The role of the arts is emphasized in attaining such experiences. Educational implications, limi-tations and strengths, and future directions are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".